A new US Republican thread 2016

[webwit]

If you want to turn this keyboard forum into a political forum by posting daily circle-jerk updates, and go on and on forever like that is the main function of this forum, ignoring people's pleas to take it to a specialist forum, having zero respect for them, you can have no expectations whatsoever about not being called a village idiot or worse.

[jacobolus]

Here, have another nice math color scheme picture.

[seebart]

"A German Clash over Trump's NATO Demands:" - Spiegel.de

February 24, 2017 06:00 PM Print FeedbackComment
It was really nothing more than a test. Sigmar Gabriel was standing at the lectern inside the Bayerischer Hof hotel in Munich for his first appearance at the Munich Security Conference in his new role as German foreign minister. And he looked terrible. He was sick and had cancelled many of his appointments, but nevertheless decided not to forego his speech and the Security Conference. He wanted to toss a fly into the NATO soup.

That morning, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence had spoken from the same stage and had used the spotlight to urge NATO member states to fulfil their alliance obligations as agreed and spend the equivalent of at least 2 percent of their GDPs on defense. Germany was one of his primary targets. The country is the clear economic leader in Europe, but Berlin only spends 1.2 percent of its GDP on the military, less even in absolute terms than the United Kingdom, France and a host of other European countries.

Gabriel was well aware of all that, but he said: "We have to be a bit careful here that we don't over-interpret the 2 percent target." He then became much clearer: "Maintain perspective, stay focused on the target, but avoid being consumed by the bliss of a new rearmament spiral!" That was the decisive phrase: Rearmament spiral.

Following the careful test balloon launched in Munich, Gabriel dripped a bit more oil into the fire a few days later, warning of "blind obedience" to the U.S. He also took a dig at his cabinet colleague Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, saying that she apparently had a rather "naïve" notion regarding what was possible in Germany.

Just a few weeks after the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump, the debate over military spending has reached the depths of the accelerating German election campaign. Trump himself triggered the debate, having declared several times that NATO is "obsolete" and hinting that the U.S. would make its loyalties dependent on member states paying their fair share.

The article you are reading originally appeared in German in issue 9/2017 (February 25, 2017) of DER SPIEGEL.
FAQ: Everything You Need to Know about DER SPIEGEL
Reprints: How To License SPIEGEL Articles
Ever since the real-estate tycoon's adversarial speeches in New York, the trans-Atlantic alliance has found itself in a crisis of trust. But for Gabriel, the issue opens up a world of possibilities.

Morals and Values

Gabriel, after all, is not just foreign minister. He is also the erstwhile head of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD). Since the party chose former European Parliament president Martin Schulz as its chancellor candidate a few weeks ago, the party has been revitalized and, after more than a decade of doldrums, finally believes it has a realistic chance of unseating Chancellor Angela Merkel in the September general election.

Gabriel is now using the battle over increased defense spending as a symbol of resistance against the unpopular President Trump, a man who most German voters view with a significant distrust. For the SPD, the debate has great potential: the enemy is clear and, at its core, the debate is about morals and values. It also has the advantage that it pushes Merkel's conservatives into the Trump camp and puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to insist on spending more money on arms, which has never been politically palatable for a broad swath of the electorate.

The debate has now become so potent that it has slowly begun losing all connection to reality. The actual needs of the German military, the Bundeswehr, hardly play any role at all. Which means the question as to what it would actually mean were 2 percent of GDP invested in the military has gone unanswered. Would it really be a "rearmament spiral" as Gabriel would have it?

The best overview of the state of the German military is provided once a year in a report submitted by Armed Forces Commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels. As an SPD member of parliament for many years, Bartels is a credible voice from the perspective of the Social Democrats. And the image that he paints of the Bundeswehr is dark indeed.

One year ago, he described how the Saxony-based 371st tank battalion, prior to taking on its role as "spearhead" of the NATO Response Force, had to borrow 15,000 pieces of equipment from 56 other German military units. In another example, the 345th artillery training battalion, based just west of Frankfurt, was officially supposed to have 24 armored artillery vehicles at its disposal. In reality, though, it had just seven, of which six were on standby for NATO and could not be used. And the seventh was in reserve for the six on standby. Troops reported to Bartels that they hadn't been able to carry out training exercises at the site for the last three years.

'Self-Reinforcing'

There is an endless list of such examples: A mountain infantry unit had only 96 pairs of night-vision goggles available instead of the 522 it had been allotted -- of which 76 had to be loaned out to other units. Which meant they only had 20, of which 17 were damaged.

The lack of equipment, Bartels wrote in his most recent report, has led to a system of sharing by necessity. "It is often the case, with Navy units that are returning from a mission, for example, that as soon as they dock in their homeport, pieces of equipment are immediately dismounted from ships and then remounted on those vessels heading out to replace them, such as (radar devices). The components wear out much more quickly due to the frequent mounting and dismounting, such that the process becomes self-reinforcing."

One can imagine the Bundeswehr as a fire department which, due to a lack of money, has no hoses, too few helmets, hardly any ladder trucks and no oxygen masks. But the department isn't eliminated entirely just in case a fire breaks out.

Following cabinet consultations back in 2010, then-Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg of the CSU, the Bavarian sister party of Merkel's CDU, rejoiced at the government's decision to cut 8.3 billion euros from the defense budget by 2014, referring to it as a "unique opportunity" for "realignment." The German military still hasn't recovered.

The military had already shrunk in the two decades since the end of the Cold War, from more than half a million soldiers to just 205,000 in 2011. The number of Leopard 2 battle tanks at the Bundeswehr's disposal likewise plunged during that same time period, from 2,000 to 225. The additional cuts announced by Guttenberg, largely a consequence of the financial crisis, were a step too far. "The national goal of budget consolidation," Guttenberg said at the time, "is the most important strategic parameter" for the reorganization of the German military.

A Stream of New Euphemisms

In the future, the structures weren't going to determined spending needs, but spending needs were going to determine the structures. Classic areas of concern, such as alliance and national defense needs, were no longer seen as central. Operations overseas became the priority, determining personnel, materiel and munitions needs. NATO's eastern flank was still at peace and, according to the logic of the time, since the boys were in Afghanistan anyway, not as many tanks were needed at home.

The Defense Ministry invented a constant stream of new euphemisms to describe the measures taken to deal with the deficiencies. "Dynamic Availability Management," for example, shortened to the acronym DynVM, was used to describe a situation when one unit had to borrow tanks from another for exercises. And when just three surveillance drones were acquired instead of the 20 necessary, it was termed "minimum contribution."

Erhard Bühler still shudders when he is forced to use such terms. As commander of the 10th tank division, he was an immediate victim of the budget cuts. He was told by Berlin one morning that his base was slated for closure and had to give a press conference at noon, still largely in the dark about what was happening.

The lieutenant general is now head of the planning division in the Defense Ministry and thus responsible for the future constellation of the German military. In addition to the German flag, a large oil painting of Prussian King Frederick the Great hangs on the wall behind his desk. He continually pulls graphics out of a file folder showing the decline of the Bundeswehr.

The consequences of Guttenberg's "realignment," the graphics make clear, are hollow structures and a military that is slowly wearing out. There is a huge need for new, modern equipment. According to protocol, the army is supposed to have at least 70 percent of large pieces of equipment, such as tanks and armored vehicles, available during operations. In reality, though, it is often much less than that. Other systems, such as night-vision goggles, are often missing completely.

Bühler's colorful graphics make it clear how the 2010 budget cuts made it impossible for several years to pursue badly needed modernization efforts. Now, it will take several more years before that technology can be delivered to the troops.

Necessary Modernization

With much to-do, Defense Minister von der Leyen has since announced several "trend reversals," according to which the Bundeswehr is turning its back on Guttenberg's focus on overseas operations. In the future, national and alliance defense will once again determine structures within the German military. Russian aggression has led to a reinterpretation of the threat levels on NATO's eastern flank.

Since the seminal Harmel Report in 1967, compiled for NATO by the Belgian Foreign Minister Pierre Harmel, the alliance has viewed effective deterrence as an important partner alongside dialogue and negotiation. Security and the reduction of tensions are not contradictory, the philosophy holds, rather the one is dependent on the other. As such, rapprochement with Russia will only be possible if Moscow takes European military strength seriously. That becomes even more important if the U.S. under Trump withdraws from Europe.

After years of falling, the German defense budget is now climbing again. This year it is slated to rise by 8 percent to 37 billion euros. But even if Germany were to increase its budget to between 65 million and 75 million euros by 2024, thus fulfilling its 2 percent commitment, it would be far from being a "rearmament spiral." Rather, it would serve to complete the necessary modernization of the German military. It would fill up the hollow structures of today.

Bühler is following the political debate carefully. In his graphics, the lines for the next budget year and thereafter are dotted and drawn in red. And they come to an end in 2021 -- at 1.5 percent.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 36140.html

[chuckdee]

I wasn't trying to characterize it in any way, truthfully. Nor was I assigning blame for it,

Fair enough. But if you listen to e.g. Senator McConnell or Grassley, they have a big sob story about the mean old Democrats who wouldn’t let them keep filibustering dozens of uncontroversial Obama appointees for giggles.

That has nothing to do with the path our political system is on. When you're in power, and can change the rules, then have to deal with it when the others are in power (look at several Trump appointees and the need for only a simple majority), there are major ramifications of decisions being made. That's my point.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... votes.html

Take a look at the chart. There are several close votes that would have needed more work if the former rules were in place, most interestingly DeVos. It's not a partisan issue, as should be plain to anyone.

[jacobolus]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... cal-attack

After a grizzly chemical attack left dozens of people dead in Syria on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was quick to blame—of course—former President Barack Obama.

"Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer told reporters. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." Spicer also said: "President Obama said in 2012 he would establish a red line against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act." (Later in the day, the White House issued a statement echoing Spicer's remarks.)

It will come as no surprise at this point that the Trump White House's position was hypocritical. First, Obama's red line at the time was a threat of US military action against Syria should it continue to use chemical weapons. When Obama asked the GOP-led Congress to authorize the potential use of force against Syria, the Republicans, not wanting to take a firm stance, declined to hold a vote. Still, Obama's move prompted Assad to agree to a Russian-brokered deal to give up his chemical weapons. To a degree, Obama's threat worked.

Whether or not Obama's policy in 2013 was successful, this much is clear: at that point, Trump had an unambiguous position regarding Syria— do nothing. Throughout this episode, Trump tweeted up a storm about Syria. Repeatedly, he declared—occasionally in all-caps!—that Obama should not be messing around in Syria. He said there was no reason to attack Syria or take any action there. Let the Arab League deal with the problem. He was asserting that Obama should not respond to the chemical attacks—a policy certainly in sync with Assad (and his Russian patrons). Stay out of this, Trump demanded, and focus on domestic issues.

Here is a sample of Trump's tweets on the subject:

Obama wants to unilaterally put a no-fly zone in Syria to protect Al Qaeda Islamists http://t.co/DCgP83Oxas Syria is NOT our problem. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2013

We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2013

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013

If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2013

How bad has our "leader" made us look on Syria. Stay out of Syria, we don't have the leadership to win wars or even strategize. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2013

"@mguarino64: @realDonaldTrump " How would you treat the Syria situation if president ?" I'd let them all fight with each other-focus on US! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2013

If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2013

"@BigSexyBDAvis: @realDonaldTrump mr trump would attack Syria or no?" No, lets make our country great again as they fight their war! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2013

What I am saying is stay out of Syria. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2013

The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

Russia is sending a fleet of ships to the Mediterranean. Obama’s war in Syria has the potential to widen into a worldwide conflict. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2013

Don't attack Syria - an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 9, 2013

Obama must now start focusing on OUR COUNTRY, jobs, healthcare and all of our many problems. Forget Syria and make America great again! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2013

We should stop talking, stay out of Syria and other countries that hate us, rebuild our own country and make it strong and great again-USA! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2013

Now Trump is blaming Obama for not adopting a more forceful stance against Assad, even though Trump back then repeatedly proclaimed that Obama should ignore the conflict (and crimes against humanity) in Syria.

This is not the first time Trump has slammed Obama in this manner. During the campaign, Trump absurdly claimed Obama and Hillary Clinton were each a "co-founder" of ISIS because they had overseen the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. (Neither were in office when ISIS was created, and the troop withdrawal agreement had been signed by President George W. Bush.) Yet in a 2006 interview, Trump had called on Bush to pull all US troops out of Iraq, even if that would lead to more violence and chaos. So as a candidate Trump was excoriating Obama for a policy that Trump had actually called for at the time.

Trump's response to the horrific Syrian attack follows this pattern: castigate Obama and hope people don't bother to review Trump's past positions. Such situational and brazen hypocrisy may be standard operating procedure for Trump. Yet it carries a greater sting when it concerns massacres and war crimes.

Webwit: Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people is America’s fault, right? I’m guessing you’ll hold your two crushes Clinton and Biden personally responsible?

[jacobolus]

My heart goes out to the victims in Syria. Hit by a sarin nerve gas attack, and then the hospital that was treating the victims got bombed as a follow-up.

Putin and Assad are truly reprehensible characters. (Which is not to excuse the horrific US war in Iraq that precipitated this whole awful mess.)

[scottc]

I feel like the only way we can improve this thread is to add a bot which posts hourly updates from ratemypoo.com.

[fohat]

At least it has steered back towards a discussion of US politics in general and the Republican Party in particular.

Trump is certain to be impeached in the not-too-distant future.

My current greatest worry is that a post-Turmp America will not be too much better.

[davkol]

ratemypoo.com

…and here I was thinking hovno.sk was unique.

[vivalarevolución]

This topic used to be fun when we all sat back in our virtual lawn chairs and slung back those virtual beers and discussed the circus and the entertainment news fest that is the modern American presidential race, among whatever other topics entered the fore. The Donald always had a slim chance, so it was all in good fun.

Now it isn't all fun and games for some of us that live in the United States, as some of the ridiculous campaign ideas are being installed as ridiculous policies and actions, and the government is turning into a nightmare (from some perspectives). The thread also is a wonderful example of American arrogance, as we think our politics are so important that everyone around the world wants to endlessly discuss them.

What this thread has evolved into is much of what we have been poking fun at for all these months. Petty personal battles, non-functional partisan politics, utter lack of self awareness, nonsensical one-up-mans-ship, toxic discussion, outright childish name calling, ignorant arrogance. If you wonder why the current state of American politics in is such shambles, just look at the discussion here and your questions are answered. We can be petty, egotistical humans, regardless of our lot in life. If you dislike a person and their opinions so much that the distaste spills out into a public discussion, why not discuss matters through personal messages rather than make yourself look like a fool? Why keep posting just hoping for a reaction? Do you really have nothing better to do?

If you're a person that cares so much about the current state of US government and politics that you have to post about here every day where almost nobody is interested in a discussion, you are wasting your time here. Go out and try to reach people that might have some influence, get active politically and locally, provide aid to those being affected by these policies, donate or volunteer for some anti-war watchdog group or refugee aid organization, whatever, because taking action in any way can assuage our anxieties and ranting does on this forum does nothing to address these issues. Yes, some of these recent political happenings are very distressing if you care about things the long-term future of human civilization or the health of American democracy or innocent civilians in war zones. But if you care so much that you have to endlessly discuss the same points to a tiny audience, get out of this thread and off this forum and do something that supports your strongly held opinions and reaches a wider audience. Ranting on forums is unhealthy and does very little. It is a waste of the limited time you have on this planet.

Otherwise, by staying here and endlessly beating the same dead horse, you are nothing more than a internet commenting, passive observer, which is exactly what the current powers want us to be as they attempt to shove their agenda down our throats and bomb more civilians halfway around the world.

Anyways, that's my attempt to stop the pettiness of this current discussion, I'm sure it will do nothing. More memes, please.

[cml]

[...]y current greatest worry is that a post-Turmp America will not be too much better.

I'm just curious, are you talking about a specific real threat, or about something more general, as, f*cked up political system, et cetera...

[fohat]

I'm just curious, are you talking about a specific real threat, or about something more general,

On many occasions Bannon has expressed his desire to "destroy the government" and to "blow it all up" so perhaps the sooner that he and Trump are gone, the better.

On the other hand, a Pence/Ryan cabal might well be almost as destructive to the social fabric of America and to the health and security of the lives of the 99%.

[seebart]

This topic used to be fun when we all sat back in our virtual lawn chairs...

No, it was only three of you for over 30+ pages. Not a very viral thread.

I feel like the only way we can improve this thread is to add a bot which posts hourly updates from ratemypoo.com.

I wouldn't cause much damage.

[andrewjoy]

Can we please let this end ?

[seebart]

end.jpeg (47.2 KiB) Viewed 12829 times

[cookie]

...ratemypoo.com.

[andrewjoy]

Well then, if we cannot just end a meme war, lets give this thread a mascot.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

Why has someone dipped Spider-Man in a bucket of bleach?

That or it's KKK Spider-Man and he's misplaced his hat.

[seebart]

60s-spiderman-meme-mulan.jpg (27.79 KiB) Viewed 12768 times

[fohat]

Can we please let this end ?

How and why is it that certain people are so desperate and frantic to kill my thread?

If you are not interested in participating in it, then just ignore it like everybody else.

On a positive note, Bannon has been removed from the NSC.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... in-shakeup

[webwit]

How and why is it that certain people are so desperate and frantic to kill my thread?

For the same reason as a small bunch of egoistic, arrogant people who give Americans a bad name, would use Deskthority to post daily diary updates about their My Little Pony hobby, while being completely aware and repeatedly made aware of just in case that the main demography does not give a fuck about My Little Pony. And if you tell them, these people are unable to show an ounce of empathy but become even more rabbit, like the place deserves punishment, with more endless My Little Pony posts on Deskhority. Village idiots at best. Sociopaths in my opinion.

[jacobolus]

I think fohat that there is a certain class of obscene people for whom any criticism of immoral or disrespectful actions is seen as a personal affront.

The tacky, the crass, the racists and anti-semites, the pussy grabbers, et al. need to stick together and stand up for each-other, for fear that otherwise society might enforce even the slightest standards of common decency, and these are folks without any shred of respect for themselves or others, and could never survive in a context where politeness was a norm.

After all, if you can’t whip out your dick and piss asinine personal insults all over someone else’s conversation, what’s the point of life?

[jacobolus]

On a positive note, Bannon has been removed from the NSC.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... in-shakeup

Apparently Mercer’s daughter had to beg Bannon to not resign altogether:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/b ... ump-236939

Like past dirty tricksters, they’re finding that you can manage to fool a good chunk of the electorate with crazy propaganda, but then when you actually win, being a racist conspiracy theorist hard-liner doesn’t much help you govern.

[webwit]

I think fohat that there is a certain class of obscene people for whom any criticism of immoral or disrespectful actions is seen as a personal affront.

The tacky, the crass, the racists and anti-semites, the pussy grabbers, et al. need to stick together and stand up for each-other, for fear that otherwise society might enforce even the slightest standards of common decency, and these are folks without any shred of respect for themselves or others, and could never survive in a context where politeness was a norm.

After all, if you can’t whip out your dick and piss asinine personal insults all over someone else’s conversation, what’s the point of life?

Oh dear, the relentless sociopath who has zero respect for this community by crapping over it on a daily basis, because it's all about him, him, him, him, him, him and him, wants to talk about the morals of other people. Which he completely and totally lacks. If you had any empathy whatsoever, you would shut the fuck up and leave. But noooo. You're truly an amazingly nasty piece of shit. Back tomorrow right, and the day after, and after, to stink up this community. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, and fuck the rest, who are not real people.

[jacobolus]

fohat: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/put ... s-together

[webwit]

@jacob https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/yo ... nd-sadists

[kekstee]

[seebart]

Can we please let this end ?

How and why is it that certain people are so desperate and frantic to kill my thread?

If you are not interested in participating in it, then just ignore it like everybody else.

On a positive note, Bannon has been removed from the NSC.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... in-shakeup

As you can see no one is closing down your thread, although some may argue jacobolus took over this thread by now. My question regarding Bannon is who and why decided to kick him off the NSC. Remember I'm one of those lame Europeans with limted US political knowledge.

[kbdfr]

I for one do read here, and like others rather miss a discussion.
Counter-arguments would be most welcome instead of myriads of pics or tons of insults.

[chuckdee]

My question regarding Bannon is who and why decided to kick him off the NSC. Remember I'm one of those lame Europeans with limted US political knowledge.

Well, there are several accounts, and no telling which one is real.

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/06/why-ste ... d-reports/

https://qz.com/950989/four-reasons-stev ... y-council/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-0 ... ty-council

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -takedown/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... mp-shakeup

Tried to include links from all sides that I could find.